Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-20-2019 8:53 PM
159 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 847,739 Year: 2,776/19,786 Month: 858/1,918 Week: 145/301 Day: 28/35 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
69NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity
Coyote
Member (Idle past 153 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 271 of 1034 (692422)
03-02-2013 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by WarriorArchangel
03-02-2013 9:10 PM


Welcome!
Welcome. I'm not sure of some of what you posted though.

"666Archangel777" writes:

We are 99.8% Neanderthal genome. How did that happen? The Neanderthal ended up in the Northern Israel wilderness circa seven hundred thousand years ago. The people in the wilderness that Cain feared would kill him. But he interbred with them instead. His offspring were the first modern humans, the Cro-Magnon.


I have to disagree with the 99.8%.

"wiki" writes:

A draft sequence publication by the Neanderthal Genome Project in May 2010 indicates that Neanderthals share more genetic lineages with non-African populations. According to the study, this scenario is best explained by gene flow from Neanderthals to modern humans after humans emerged from Africa. An estimated 1—4% of the DNA in Europeans and Asians (e.g. French, Chinese and Papua probands) is non-modern and shared with ancient Neanderthal DNA rather than with Sub-Saharan Africans (e.g. Yoruba and San probands). Though less parsimonious than gene flow, ancient sub-structure in Africa, could account for the higher levels of Neanderthal lineages detected in Eurasians.

Another source notes:

Scientists have sequenced the genome of Neanderthals, the closest relatives of modern humans. The initial analysis, published in this week’s Science magazine, showed that up to 2 percent of the modern human’s DNA outside of Africa came from Neanderthals or in Neanderthals’ ancestor.

The dates for the Israeli Neanderthals seem to be significantly less than the 700,000 years you claimed. The oldest I can find is about 500,000 years (Tabun), with several others less than half that. Most are closer to 50,000 years old.

"Cain" is a religious myth, with no necessary relationship to either scientific data or modern humans.

Following this your post degenerates into vague religious-based claims and other nonsense that don't seem appropriate for the Science Forum here.

Your name seems familiar. Have we seen you here before?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by WarriorArchangel, posted 03-02-2013 9:10 PM WarriorArchangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 12:45 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16083
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(3)
Message 272 of 1034 (692426)
03-02-2013 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Faith
03-02-2013 9:38 PM


Re: Stuff That Actually Happens
The American Curl may be unique in being developed from a mutation ...

Why would one think that?

Note that your personal preference is not actually a reason.

Heck, I can think of another case involving the ears of cats. Ever heard of the Scottish Fold, Faith? It's named for ... you guessed it, its whimsical ears and its country of origin. The founding member of the breed was found at a farm near Coupar Angus in Perthshire, Scotland, in 1961, and named Susie. All Scottish Folds are descended from Susie. Can you guess what sort of gene is responsible for the trait? If you said "autosomal dominant", take one point. Is any of this sounding familiar? Déjà vu creeping in yet?

But once breeding becomes a matter of inbreeding ONLY with American Curls then you'll see the loss of genetic diversity I'm talking about as alleles for all the other types of ears will be reduced and even ultimately disappear from the gene pool altogether.

And yet it will still have more genetic diversity than it did when the breed had only one member.

But it's still possible in my mind that even this very rare characteristic was not a mutation but a very rare combination of existing alleles for perhaps more than one gene. Very rare. Yes, possible. So that you don't really "know" that it was a mutation.

I do in fact, because I know that that's what actual studies show, and I also know that the evidence trumps whatever's going on in your mind.

If it was a combination of alleles, then it would behave rather like a recessive. You could outbreed Curls with non-Curls, some of the non-Curls in the resulting generation would get one of the Curl alleles and some would get the other, and then you could recombine the alleles by breeding that generation together, and get some Curls back. But in fact the Curl breeds exactly as though the trait was caused by a single autosomal dominant allele. 'Cos it is.

Sorry you find reality so much not to your liking.

I find it highly congenial. That's why I wrote a post about real things and you responded by writing about imaginary things in your head.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 9:38 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 3:00 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18261
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 273 of 1034 (692436)
03-03-2013 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Faith
03-02-2013 9:38 PM


Re: Stuff That Actually Happens
Faith writes:

But it's still possible in my mind that even this very rare characteristic was not a mutation but a very rare combination of existing alleles for perhaps more than one gene. Very rare. Yes, possible. So that you don't really "know" that it was a mutation.

Three things.

First, we know it was a mutation because research revealed that it was a mutation: The American Curl Cat, Journal of Heredity, 1989.

Second, yes mutations are rare in breeding programs because of the small populations and limited timespans, as has already been stated in this thread many times. And in the case of the American Curl, it was not the result of any breeding program to develop its unique characteristics. Rather, the mutation just popped up in a stray cat, and the people who took her in, who were only casual cat owners, became interested in the possibility of creating a new breed.

Third, this is yet another example of something that you think we don't know that we do happen to know. In fact, most of what people have been telling you in this thread are things that we do happen to know.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 03-02-2013 9:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6616
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 274 of 1034 (692438)
03-03-2013 9:21 AM


A QI phenomenon where mutation has been proven to create speciation AND increase diversity is 'instant speciation'

Figure 2: The history of the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor, is an example of mutation and its potential effects. When an ancestral Hyla chrysocelis gray treefrog failed to sort its 24 chromosomes during meiosis, the result was H. versicolor. This treefrog is identical in size, shape and color to H. chrysocelis but has 48 chromosomes and a mating call that is different from the original H. chrysocelis.

Of course, it's still a frog ;-)


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 2:25 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1867 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 275 of 1034 (692448)
03-03-2013 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Coyote
03-02-2013 10:54 PM


raising Cain again....

"Cain" is a religious myth, with no necessary relationship to either scientific data or modern humans.

The story about Cain and Abel, among other things, corr4sponds quite accurately to what scientists have seen as the driving force behind the rise of man, where thinking and brain power required a dietary difference from other early humanoid types.

Gen. 4:2 And she, (as a line of human ascent), again (evolved another new sub-species), bare his brother, Abel, (Australopithecus anamensis).
And Abel (was carnivorous,) was a keeper of sheep, but Cain (Ardipithecus ramidus, a vegetarian), was a tiller of the ground.

Gen. 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain, (Ardipithecus ramidus, a vegetarian), brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD, (which is the ever unfolding almighty Reality within which all men are both trapped and nurtured).

Gen. 4:4 And Abel, (Australopithecus anamensis, was carnivorous), he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD, (Father Nature, our Reality), had respect, (in regard to the evolutionary value of a high protein diet), unto Abel, (Australopithecus anamnesis), and to his offering:

Gen. 4:5 But unto Cain, (Ardipithecus ramidus was vegetarian), and to his offering, (as concerning the nutritional value to brain metabolism), he, (Father Nature, our Reality), had not respect, (in regard to the demands of the expanding mental abilities of evolving man).
And Cain, (Ardipithecus ramidus), was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

"Invoking diet to explain the differences between... H. erectus and earlier forms such as H. habilis, a species known only from fragmentary fossils, ...and our more apelike ancestors, the australopithecines, is nothing new.

The size difference between males and females in H. erectus is narrower than it is in the australopithecines of half a million years earlier. And the brains of both sexes grew larger while their guts and teeth shrank; the most dramatic changes occurred between specimens assigned to early Homo species and those classed in H. erectus. "There's no other point [in time] when you get such large changes," says Wrangham.

The traditional dietary explanation, however, is a shift from nuts and berries to meat.
Cut marks on animal bones suggest that humans had mastered meat-eating, perhaps by scavenging carcasses, by 1.8 million years ago.
Many researchers have assumed that this high-quality food fueled the rise of H. erectus, enabling it to process food with smaller teeth and guts and nourishing larger brains and bodies."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Coyote, posted 03-02-2013 10:54 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

    
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 1867 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 276 of 1034 (692449)
03-03-2013 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by WarriorArchangel
03-02-2013 9:10 PM


Re: Thanks for Acknowledgments of the Claim of Reduced Genetic Diversity

Intelligence doesn't evolve. It is inherited. Embedded in the womb and will learn to its capacity. Cain gave us the intelligence gene. In the theory of evolution there is no ape to pass on the intelligence gene.

Genetics has confirmed that you are wrong here in anumber of ways.

Intellgence DID evolve and we have located the genes which show this.

When two of the 24 Ape chromosomes fused and man, with only 23 chromosomes evolved from the Atomic "dust" inside the womb of that surrogate Ape mother, the genes which correspond to semantic intelligence appeared along with that Act-of-God:

"Recent studies suggest that genes on chromosome 2 may play an important role in human intelligence:"

A Linkage Study of Academic Skills Defined by the Queensland Core Skills “While no empirically derived significant or suggestive peaks for general academic achievement were indicated, a peak on chromosome 2 was observed in a region where Posthuma et al. (2005) reported significant linkage for Performance IQ (PIQ) and suggestive linkage for Full Scale IQ (FSIQ), and Luciano et al. (this issue) observed significant linkage for PIQ and word reading.

In addition, on chromosomes 2 and 18 peaks for a number of specific academic skills, two of which were suggestive, coincided with the general academic achievement peaks.

The findings suggest that variation in general academic achievement is influenced by genes on chromosome 2 which have broad influence on a variety of cognitive abilities.

http://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p/staff/CV453.pdf
Test


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by WarriorArchangel, posted 03-02-2013 9:10 PM WarriorArchangel has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 2:20 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 1034 (692455)
03-03-2013 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Tangle
03-02-2013 4:36 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Faith writes:

Genetic isolation is what brings about reduced genetic diversity and in fact with small populations is almost synonymous with reduced genetic diversity.

There is no-one on this thread that disagrees with that. It's purely an arithmetic truth. It's been said over and over. So maybe we can stop agreeing.

Funny but I haven't yet seen ANYONE recognize what I'm talking about except Percy and NoNukes and both of them go on to say things that clearly show they aren't getting it in any consistent way.

Which wouldn't surprise me since although the idea is simple it really isn't easy to keep in mind and it is easy to get it confused. You AREN'T getting it but claiming you are makes the whole thing worse. You assert it but don't demonstrate it.

It's NOT "purely an arithmetic thing" like adding and subtracting as I've said many times already. Just that comment alone proves you don't have a clue. It is NOT water-in-water-out.

It's the next step that you're all screwed up on.

You are the one that's screwed up.

You think that simply having a subset of an existing population somehow allows the smaller group to adapt to a different environment.

I have NOT argued for new populations "adapting to a different environment." I have SPECIFICALLY said more than once that I don't think adaptation is the driving force of the phenotypic changes. You CANNOT read, why do you pretend you can?

The point is that MERE change in gene frequencies is enough to make a new variety, adaptation is NOT the driving force in most cases.

That doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

NOTHING you say makes much sense.

Now to be fair, in some cases this might work. If you read the 'how novel features evolve' thread you'll find the interesting case of the wall lizards. They were isolated and changed their diet from insectavore to vegitarian and developed valves in their bowel to enable the digestion of cellulose. The biologists studying them claim that this was caused by gentic mutation, but as yet, photypic plasticity can't be ruled out.

Since I am not arguing about adaptation this example is ridiculously off topic. Get the argument first, stop claiming you do get it when you obviously don't and since you will not or can not, please exit this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Tangle, posted 03-02-2013 4:36 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Percy, posted 03-03-2013 4:03 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 278 of 1034 (692456)
03-03-2013 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by kofh2u
03-03-2013 12:56 PM


BUNCH OF OFF TOPIC POSTS
KOFH2U AND THE ARCHANGEL guy are not on topic in this thread.
Please start your own thread.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 12:56 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 1034 (692457)
03-03-2013 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Tangle
03-03-2013 9:21 AM


What on EARTH is your point here? It has NOTHING to do with the point of this thread that I can see.

How is this an example of speciation? And since speciation isn't the main point of my thread what does it have to do with my argument? And if you're trying to prove greater genetic diversity along with speciation why don't you even bother to give the evidence that there IS greater genetic diversity and/or even speciation? And even if both are true OBVIOUSLY IT'S AN EXCEPTION.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Tangle, posted 03-03-2013 9:21 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 1034 (692461)
03-03-2013 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Dr Adequate
03-02-2013 11:15 PM


Re: Stuff That Actually Happens
The American Curl may be unique in being developed from a mutation ...

Why would one think that?

Note that your personal preference is not actually a reason.

Heck, I can think of another case

GOLLY GEE, TWO WHOLE CASES! An epidemic of mutation-based breeds!

And again, you don't KNOW if this was a mutation. Mutations are mostly an imaginary artifact of evolutionism, a sort of god invoked to explain every kind of novelty.

And here you have another EAR anomaly. TWO "mutations" in the EAR! Wow, how likely is that? Sure does seem to me to be far more likely the result of rare but normally occurring. allelic combinations

Faith writes:

But once breeding becomes a matter of inbreeding ONLY with American Curls then you'll see the loss of genetic diversity I'm talking about as alleles for all the other types of ears will be reduced and even ultimately disappear from the gene pool altogether.

DrA writes:

And yet it will still have more genetic diversity than it did when the breed had only one member.

Which proves absolutely nothing with respect to my argument here. Which must need to be repeated AGAIN, since it's so consistently misunderstood:

The argument is that reduced genetic diversity is the natural result of the SELECTING AND ISOLATING processes that PRODUCE new phenotypes.

What you have in this case is something else: you HAVE the new trait or phenotype in one individual and two of its offspring and you are ADDING genetic diversity in order to preserve the trait while PREVENTING the loss of genetic diversity that could threaten the creature.

Yes you can ADD GENETIC DIVERSITY, by cross breeding, by hybridization, by anything that increases GENE FLOW. Interesting that of course this IS how it was done with the Curl instead of relying on the god Mutation to do the work of improving its genetic diversity.

When all you have is a single individual with a trait you want to preserve, that's already a case of such depleted genetic diversity you MUST cross-breed to improve its chances of survival, but adding genetic diversity has nothing to do with FORMING the phenotype which ALWAYS comes about along with reduced genetic diversity. In this case quite extreme, since only the single founding individual had the trait.

You are increasing gene flow, you are not selecting or isolating you are adding; but selection and isolation are the opposite of gene flow and these are THE methods of producing and maintaining new phenotypes or traits.

And if the breed is now to be subjected to more rigorous inbreeding after thirty years of protecting its genetic diversity you will NOW start getting the reduced genetic diversity that is ALWAYS the effect of the selection and isolation processes. I've never made an issue about any particular AMOUNT of genetic diversity, the point is always the TREND in that direction through selection and isolation.

Faith writes:

But it's still possible in my mind that even this very rare characteristic was not a mutation but a very rare combination of existing alleles for perhaps more than one gene. Very rare. Yes, possible. So that you don't really "know" that it was a mutation.

I do in fact, because I know that that's what actual studies show, and I also know that the evidence trumps whatever's going on in your mind.

Haven't seen any actual EVIDENCE here, just the usual evolutionist hocus-pocus invocation of the god Mutation, which can also be invoked in "studies" because of unconscious bias. HOWEVER, I DID acknowledge that PERHAPS it IS a mutation. I merely have my doubts, and now that you've pointed out another "mutation" involving the ear of the cat I have even more doubts.

If it was a combination of alleles, then it would behave rather like a recessive. You could outbreed Curls with non-Curls, some of the non-Curls in the resulting generation would get one of the Curl alleles and some would get the other, and then you could recombine the alleles by breeding that generation together, and get some Curls back. But in fact the Curl breeds exactly as though the trait was caused by a single autosomal dominant allele. 'Cos it is.

But as I understand it there are situations in which even a dominant can be suppressed in the phenotype and brought to phenotypic expression only through a rare combination of alleles for more than one gene. Is that not so?

Sorry you find reality so much not to your liking.

I find it highly congenial. That's why I wrote a post about real things and you responded by writing about imaginary things in your head.

Funny how evolutionists project like this onto creationists. Seems to be your only real accomplishment in these arguments.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2013 11:15 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2013 4:15 PM Faith has responded
 Message 284 by Percy, posted 03-03-2013 4:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18261
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 281 of 1034 (692464)
03-03-2013 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
03-03-2013 2:18 PM


Re: Mutations Don't Add Anything That Could Rescue the ToE
Faith writes:

Funny but I haven't yet seen ANYONE recognize what I'm talking about except Percy and NoNukes and both of them go on to say things that clearly show they aren't getting it in any consistent way.

I think pretty much everyone in this thread understands your position. You're arguing that the reduction in genetic diversity often associated with isolation of a subpopulation can create a unique subspecies. Everyone agrees with you about this.

You're also arguing three other things. You're arguing that a reduction in genetic diversity can create a new species, and this is false. And you're also arguing that mutations play little or no role in speciation, and this is also false. And you're arguing that adaptation isn't a much of a factor in selection, and this too is false.

It's NOT "purely an arithmetic thing" like adding and subtracting as I've said many times already. Just that comment alone proves you don't have a clue. It is NOT water-in-water-out.

I assume by "it" you're referring to diversity? If you're not measuring diversity arithmetically then how are you measuring it? If the general population has N total alleles and the subpopulation has N-1 total alleles, can't we say that the subpopulation has less diversity than the main population. And if later the subpopulation has N-2 total alleles, can't we say that it has experienced a further decline in diversity?

Now naturally I grant that for more detailed study we might want more complex approaches to measuring diversity, but certainly to a first level of approximation we can say that if a population acquires a new allele then it has experienced an increase in diversity, and if it loses an allele then it has experienced a decrease in diversity.

And so it *is* just like water-in/water-out in a bathtub where both faucet and drain are simultaneously open. Let's say both the faucet and drain are open only very slightly. Water is dripping into the bathtub through the faucet, and water is dripping out of the bathtub through the drain. Each drop of water represents an allele, and so since our bathtub is full of many drops of water, all the water in the bathtub represents a great many alleles. When a drop of water falls into the bathtub it is like a mutation creating a new allele in a population, and the bathtub has increased diversity. And when a drop of water falls out of the bathtub it is like an allele becoming extinct from the population, and the bathtub has decreased in diversity.

If more drops of water are flowing in to the bathtub than flowing out then this is akin to a population acquiring more alleles through mutation than it is losing through extinction, and as the level of water in the bathtub rises it corresponds to an increase in diversity.

If fewer drops of water are flowing in to the bathtub than are flowing out then this is akin to a population acquiring fewer alleles through mutation than it is losing through extinction, and as the level of water in the bathtub falls it corresponds to a decrease in diversity. If the level of water in the bathtub drops to zero then it corresponds to the subpopulation going extinct.

Now it's perfectly acceptable to me if you personally find this analogy confusing or ill-fitting or whatever, in which case I'll seek other ways of making my point, but it isn't wrong. If you're going to continue to claim that the analogy is wrong without explaining in what way it is wrong then I will have to continue to explain that it is not wrong.

You think that simply having a subset of an existing population somehow allows the smaller group to adapt to a different environment.

I have NOT argued for new populations "adapting to a different environment." I have SPECIFICALLY said more than once that I don't think adaptation is the driving force of the phenotypic changes.

Yes, you have, but your position is completely contradictory. You can't have selection by the environment with little or no adaptation to the environment. That's as nonsensical as if I claimed that when I select songs for my music collection it has no bearing on whether it is adapted to my taste. Until you construct an argument with some internal consistency you can't hold others to any high standards for decoding what you mean.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 2:18 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 5:33 PM Percy has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16083
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 282 of 1034 (692465)
03-03-2013 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Faith
03-03-2013 3:00 PM


Re: Stuff That Actually Happens
GOLLY GEE, TWO WHOLE CASES!

That's two more than you've produced in favor of your ideas.

An epidemic of mutation-based breeds!

Indeed there are. For example, let's talk about the American Wirehair, so named because of the country of its origin and the resemblance of its hair to steel wool. The first American was born to two ordinary American Shorthairs named Bootsie and Fluffy on Council Rock Farm in Verona NY in 1966, and was the only one in his litter to exhibit the trait. Local cat-breeder Joan O'Shea recognized the kitten as a new variety, bought him for $50 and called him Council Rock Farm Adam of Hi-Fi, because ... no, I don't know. It's the "of Hi-Fi" bit that really puzzles me.

All American Wirehairs today are descended from Adam, as I shall call him from now on. Adam was outbred with ordinary American Shorthairs to establish the breed. For this reason, although Adam was red and white, American Wirehairs now come in every color, and the breed is clearly more genetically diverse than when it consisted only of Adam.

The wirehair allele is, guess what? ... autosomal dominant. Therefore similar remarks apply to its novelty as apply to the Americal Curl and the Scottish Fold.

Now, shall we talk about the LaPerm breed, noted for its ringlet coat? It originated with a single kitten called Curly, born in 1982 on the Oregon cherry farm of Linda and Dick Koehl. All LaPerm cats are descended from Curly; outbreeding was performed with a number of different pedigree and non-pedigree cats to increase the diversity of the breed. The LaPerm gene is autosomal dominant ...

Now shall we talk about the Selkirk Rex and the Munchkin ... ? Actually, there's no need, the only differences are the dates, the locations, the names of the cat owners, the names of the cats, and the traits.

---

Are you beginning to see a pattern here, Faith? When we have records of the origin of a new breed, it turns out to have resulted from the recognition of a novel mutation in a single individual, followed (as a matter of biological necessity) by outbreeding which logically entails increasing the diversity of the breed up from the point at which it had only one member.

None of the breeds we've looked at here can have been produced by whittling away at pre-existing genes, because they are all caused by autosomal dominant alleles; if the curl, fold, wirehair and LaPerm alleles had always existed, then so would Curl, Fold, Wirehair and LaPerm cats.

And again, you don't KNOW if this was a mutation.

Yes I do. For reasons which have been explained to you. If you didn't understand the reasoning, that means that you don't know that it was a mutation. I, on the other hand, do.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 3:00 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 4:37 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 1034 (692467)
03-03-2013 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Dr Adequate
03-03-2013 4:15 PM


Re: Stuff That Actually Happens
Interesting information about different breeds, thanks.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here, Faith? When we have records of the origin of a new breed, it turns out to have resulted from the recognition of a novel mutation in a single individual,

Well, at least recognition of a novel trait in a single individual, but as for its source being mutation, no you don't know that. You don't know but what thirty years previously the same trait showed up in a remote area where it soon got interbred back into oblivion. These traits on the other hand are showing up where people have enough interest in such things to treat them as something special.

...followed (as a matter of biological necessity) by outbreeding which logically entails increasing the diversity of the breed up from the point at which it had only one member.

Which of course I not only acknowledged but elaborated in my own post.

None of the breeds we've looked at here can have been produced by whittling away at pre-existing genes,

I didn't say they were. Clearly they emerged as single novel traits in individuals (but this in itself doesn't have to be the result of a mutation but can be the result of the simple absence of of the other genetic combinations for other versions of the same trait occurring through normal sexual recombination)

because they are all caused by autosomal dominant alleles; if the curl, fold, wirehair and LaPerm alleles had always existed, then so would Curl, Fold, Wirehair and LaPerm cats.

And for some reason the god Mutation favors autosomal dominant alleles and likes to repeat them for the same trait from time to time?

And again, you don't KNOW if this was a mutation.

Yes I do. For reasons which have been explained to you. If you didn't understand the reasoning, that means that you don't know that it was a mutation. I, on the other hand, do.

And PERHAPS you are right. But I have my doubts nevertheless. As I said, I understand that even dominant alleles can be suppressed in the phenotype and only show up in particular combinations of alleles for more than one gene.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2013 4:15 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2013 5:28 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 287 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2013 5:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18261
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 284 of 1034 (692468)
03-03-2013 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Faith
03-03-2013 3:00 PM


Re: Stuff That Actually Happens
Faith writes:

GOLLY GEE, TWO WHOLE CASES! An epidemic of mutation-based breeds!

Dr A's point wasn't that mutation-based breeds are common. He was merely responding to your statement that, "The American Curl may be unique in being developed from a mutation..." Your statement was incorrect.

Mutations are rare in breeding programs, and the American Curl mutation did not occur within a breeding program. Breeding programs typically have specific goals. Not only are useful mutations rare in small populations, it would be even more rare for them to produce a quality that the breeding program happened to be seeking.

And again, you don't KNOW if this was a mutation. Mutations are mostly an imaginary artifact of evolutionism, a sort of god invoked to explain every kind of novelty.

The observational and experimental evidence for mutations is undeniable. You've been pointed to some of that evidence in this very thread, for example the Wikipedia article on Mutation Rates. Denying reality is just delusional.

And here you have another EAR anomaly. TWO "mutations" in the EAR! Wow, how likely is that? Sure does seem to me to be far more likely the result of rare but normally occurring. allelic combinations

As I already described to you in Message 273 and as Dr A described to you in Message 267, we know that the American Curl is the result of a mutation because research revealed that it is the result of a mutation: The American Curl Cat, Journal of Heredity, 1989.

When you have evidence that the American Curl is not the result of a mutation then that would be the time to dispute the claim that it is the result of a mutation, but until that time you have no evidence and any doubts you express are baseless and a waste of everyone's time.

The argument is that reduced genetic diversity is the natural result of the SELECTING AND ISOLATING processes that PRODUCE new phenotypes.

But it doesn't produce new species. No one is disputing that selection can produce new phenotypes, but it doesn't produce new species, and that's what you need in order to support your claim captured in this thread's title, that evolution (which explains how new species arise) requires only a reduction in genetic diversity.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 3:00 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14717
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 285 of 1034 (692471)
03-03-2013 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Faith
03-03-2013 4:37 PM


Re: Stuff That Actually Happens
quote:

Well, at least recognition of a novel trait in a single individual, but as for its source being mutation, no you don't know that. You don't know but what thirty years previously the same trait showed up in a remote area where it soon got interbred back into oblivion. These traits on the other hand are showing up where people have enough interest in such things to treat them as something special.

Faith, this is a point I've been trying to make. It isn't possible to confuse a simple dominant mutation with a rare combination of genes. The outcomes of breeding are just too different.

If you really have a model of genetics that lets you get around that, then let's hear it. As I said before, I'm pretty sure that you don't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 03-03-2013 4:37 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
2021
...
69NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019